The President Lied To The American People Again. When Will Enough Be Enough?

No, it's not. To be "wire tapped" means you are the target and your "wires" were intercepted and listened to and/or recorded.

Let's say I tapped your boss's phone. Your boss's phone was being constantly monitored under a totally legal and legitimate warrant as part of an
investigation.

You call and talk to your boss.

Since your boss's telephone conversations are being monitored and/or recorded, does that somehow mean you are being 'tapped". Was YOUR phone line
specifically being constantly monitored?

No, of course not. This isn't parsing words. If I have a video camera pointed at my front door and someone walks by and they're recorded, would you
make the ludicrous claim I had that person under surveillance? No, of course not. That person isn't the target.

Point blank, Trump's own phone lines weren't being monitored or recorded.

If you recorded and kept the images of those people walking by your front door and then passed the recordings to an investigator who was looking to
find out where those people were, then yes, you would have been spying on them.

Why do you keep harping on the use of the word wiretapping. I have yet to see anyone say that they do don't accept it to generally mean
surveillance.

It seems to me that the reason kettu posted: "To be "wire tapped" means you are the target and your "wires" were intercepted and listened to and/or
recorded." with the words "wire tapped" and "wires" is because he is using them in the general sense and not literally so that your rebuttal does not
apply.

As for the idea of incidental, the hacked Podesta e-mails are a perfect example. Podesta's email account was hacked. All the emails sent to him by
other people were leaked along with the emails he sent. Those were incidental. The accounts of the people who sent those emails were not hacked.

So, just like kettu said, if Trump communicated with someone who was being intercepted his communique would be intercepted but not because he was the
one under surveillance.

Are you, UKTruth under a specific surveillance order by a red light intersection camera? Does it say anywhere that you, a particular individual are to
be targeted by specific cameras at specific times and places?

No.

If you happen to drive by those cameras and you are caught by them, you are unintentionally being recorded.

If later a warrant comes down about you in particular and any and all information about you running red lights is specified in that warrant, the
people operating them might be able to say, "Well, let's see if we go through our footage..."

You were never the actual target despite being caught on video by the camera. To be "wire tapped" means you are the target of an active surveillance
operation.

Retroactively passing along information obtained legally via a FISA warrant on a person inadvertently caught does not mean they were the target of a
"wire tap".

It defies common sense and logic to use that kind of mental gymnastics to see it way.

Why do you keep harping on the use of the word wiretapping. I have yet to see anyone say that they do don't accept it to generally mean
surveillance.

It seems to me that the reason kettu posted: "To be "wire tapped" means you are the target and your "wires" were intercepted and listened to and/or
recorded." with the words "wire tapped" and "wires" is because he is using them in the general sense and not literally so that your rebuttal does not
apply.

As for the idea of incidental, the hacked Podesta e-mails are a perfect example. Podesta's email account was hacked. All the emails sent to him by
other people were leaked along with the emails he sent. Those were incidental. The accounts of the people who sent those emails were not hacked.

So, just like kettu said, if Trump communicated with someone who was being intercepted his communique would be intercepted but not because he was the
one under surveillance.

Because people keep pointing to Trumps tweet calling him a liar.

Im all queued up to declare him the asshole of the century. But i won't be dishonest doing it.

No, it's not. To be "wire tapped" means you are the target and your "wires" were intercepted and listened to and/or recorded.

Let's say I tapped your boss's phone. Your boss's phone was being constantly monitored under a totally legal and legitimate warrant as part of an
investigation.

You call and talk to your boss.

Since your boss's telephone conversations are being monitored and/or recorded, does that somehow mean you are being 'tapped". Was YOUR phone line
specifically being constantly monitored?

No, of course not. This isn't parsing words. If I have a video camera pointed at my front door and someone walks by and they're recorded, would you
make the ludicrous claim I had that person under surveillance? No, of course not. That person isn't the target.

Point blank, Trump's own phone lines weren't being monitored or recorded.

If you recorded and kept the images of those people walking by your front door and then passed the recordings to an investigator who was looking to
find out where those people were, then yes, you would have been spying on them.

Point blank.

Can you please specify and give examples of actual case law where that has been proven the case? Where has it ever been proven by a judge or jury that
those caught incidentally are considered under surveillance, the one and the same as the actual, original target?

So you don't care, it's business as usual? Lying as usual? Pull your head out of the sand. This isn't lying as usual. Trump has told a half century's
worth of Presidential whoppers in the first two months of his term.

Where do you think we go from here if you and others continue to make lame excuses and ignore the reality that President Trump's words are often
wholly divorced from that very reality?

Ya, cause we know if Hillary was in there instead, there'd be no lying. Her and Bill were the paragons of honesty.

Im not defending his mistake. Im saying is isn't a lie, or that it can't be proven to be a lie. Im a bet hedger. I won't commit solidly to
something im not positive on. I don't like eating crow, so try to not put myself in a position to do it. I get called "wishy washy" because of this,
and am happy to take that lump. Because I won't commit until I know. And right now, I don't know. I may suspect, sure. But i also suspect a whole
lot of other conspiracy related stuff (this is ATS, afterall). And I did get to see a press conference full of "no comment"

Listen...im happy to go back and forth here with you.....but it can't happen if you are gonna be trying to mischaracterize what I've clearly stated is
otherwise. My only beef is in the calling of "liar'. Im the same about "racist". For an arguement that wants to parse actual meaning of the word
"wiretap", i'd think being accurate with the word "liar" would matter more.

So you don't care, it's business as usual? Lying as usual? Pull your head out of the sand. This isn't lying as usual. Trump has told a half century's
worth of Presidential whoppers in the first two months of his term.

Where do you think we go from here if you and others continue to make lame excuses and ignore the reality that President Trump's words are often
wholly divorced from that very reality?

Ya, cause we know if Hillary was in there instead, there'd be no lying. Her and Bill were the paragons of honesty.

Hillary is a turd so is Trump. No matter which one was elected we would see a myriad of lies and deceit, but that doesn't mean people should look the
other way.

The fallacy of saying he is not Hillary has no bearing on holding him accountable.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
For an arguement that wants to parse actual meaning of the word "wiretap"

You are the only one that seems to be saying that this is the argument being made.

Everyone keeps pointing out that "wiretapping" (which can mean more than just wires attached to a phone line) did happen but that the article that
Trump cited never said it was Trump that was "wiretapped".

Trump is in the Whitehouse because Hillary didn't have enough sense to stay out of the running. Only a small group of people really wanted to see her
run again. Trump represents everything wrong with society and she represented everything wrong in politics.

IMO she ran for herself not with any high ideals of serving the country. With Trump there is not much difference, but he talks a good game. The
election was a lose lose scenario. I blame those who let them be in the top position to represent a party. Anyway, it is a done deal there is no use
comparing the two anymore.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.